8.

TABAO y PEREZ vs People

Topic: Reckless imprudence/denial/expert witness

Reckless imprudence, generally defined by our penal law, consists in voluntarily, but without
malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such
act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. Imprudence connotes a
deficiency of action. It implies a failure in precaution or a failure to take the necessary
precaution once the danger or peril becomes foreseen.21 Thus, in order for conviction to be
decreed for reckless imprudence, the material damage suffered by the victim, the failure in
precaution on the part of the accused, and the direct link between material damage and failure
in precaution must be established beyond reasonable doubt. We are morally convinced that all
three were established in this case in accordance with the required level of evidence in criminal
cases.

Discrepancies and/or inconsistencies between a witness affidavit and testimony in open court
do not impair credibility as affidavits are taken ex parte and are often incomplete or inaccurate
for lack or absence of searching inquiries by the investigating officer.
The general rule that contradictions and discrepancies between the testimony of a witness
and his statements in an affidavit do not necessarily discredit him is not without exception, as
when the omission in the affidavit refers to a very important detail of the incident that one
relating the incident as an eyewitness would not be expected to fail to mention, or when the
narration in the sworn statement substantially contradicts the testimony in court.
The right of a person using public streets and highways for travel in relation to other motorists
is mutual, coordinate and reciprocal. He is bound to anticipate the presence of other persons
whose rights on the street or highway are equal to his own.31 Although he is not an insurer
against injury to persons or property, it is nevertheless his duty to operate his motor vehicle
with due and reasonable care and caution under the circumstances for the safety of others as
well as for his own.
Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states that the opinion of a witness on a
matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training, which he is shown to possess,
may be received in evidence. The use of the word "may" signifies that the use of opinion of an
expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the part of the courts. Allowing the
testimony does not mean, too, that courts are bound by the testimony of the expert witness.
The testimony of an expert witness must be construed to have been presented not to sway the
court in favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the determination of the issue
before it, and is for the court to adopt or not to adopt depending on its appreciation of the
attendant facts and the applicable law.

A denial is negative evidence. To be believed, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-
culpability; otherwise, the denial is purely self-serving and has no evidentiary value.